reset_simulation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and side-effect details, but it only states the high-level action. It does not explain whether the reset is destructive, if it triggers a cook, clears memory, or what 'initial state' entails for different simulation types.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. However, it may be too terse given the lack of annotations and parameter explanation, but it earns a 4 for being concise without verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what resetting entails, what the path parameter is, and any side effects. It lacks these details, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain what 'path' refers to (node path, file path, simulation object?) or provide format examples. The description implies the simulation to reset but leaves the parameter meaning ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Reset a simulation to its initial state' uses a specific verb (reset) and resource (simulation), clearly indicating the core action. It differentiates from sibling tools like step_simulation or setup_*_sim, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like step_simulation or get_simulation_info. The description does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or contexts where resetting is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.